EDITORIAL: Bergdahl's release should be investigated

Tuesday

Jun 10, 2014 at 8:00 PMJun 10, 2014 at 8:31 PM

At times, it’s difficult to tell whether President Barack Obama is clueless or calculating. Was he so clueless as to believe that a controversial move like trading five hard-core terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for American prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl would be hailed as a great triumph with little or no dissent?

At times, it’s difficult to tell whether President Barack Obama is clueless or calculating. Was he so clueless as to believe that a controversial move like trading five hard-core terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for American prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl would be hailed as a great triumph with little or no dissent? Or was it a calculating move that he hoped would allow him to claim to be on the side of angels and bash anyone who criticized him?Rather than engage in the president’s own favorite pastime of building straw men, we might add that there is another, more benign possibility. The president might simply have believed that retrieving a prisoner of war, despite the circumstances of his capture, was the appropriate thing to do.Regardless of his motivation, like most of Obama’s foreign policy, this latest move isn’t working out so well. And questioning its wisdom, contrary to the claims of some of the president’s supporters, does not make someone an Obama hater bent on bashing his every action; nor does it make someone unpatriotic. And the orchestrated announcement of Bergdahl’s release had the unmistakable aroma of someone making political hay at an inappropriate moment.At this point, unless we discover that Bergdahl is, in fact, a deep cover operative who has invaluable intelligence that the country cannot do without or that he is a traitor and the entire purpose of the swap was to return him to face the consequences of his actions, then we must conclude that the president’s decision was unwise. It is true that the U.S. military’s creed is to leave no one behind. But that supposition is based on prisoners acquitting themselves honorably up to their capture.Members of Bergdahl’s own platoon have stated unequivocally that is not the case. They say he walked off his post, which would make him a deserter. They are angry that he turned his back on them. They are even angrier that lives of men who were serving honorably were lost searching for him.Yes, it is important for members of the military to know that their country will go to great lengths to ensure that they won’t languish in captivity. But they are expected to resist or retreat from the enemy before capture, not fall into his arms.It is also important for this country’s enemies to understand that captured Americans aren’t another weapon in their arsenal that can be used for achieving their goals. The president has now set a precedent that could have unintended consequences.We don’t know all of the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s disappearance from his post and we won’t until the incident has been thoroughly investigated. But investigation has hardly been the Obama administration’s strong suit and its “double-down” response to criticism of the prisoner swap does little to instill any confidence in its willingness to take a hard look at Bergdahl’s disappearance and recovery.